Foxes To Guard Henhouse - Film At 11

ClimateGate - Down But Not Out

So...the scumbaggery continues.

"Hey, it looks like anthropogenic global warming is being realized for the farce that it is...I know - let's just repackage the whole shebang, and we can reap benefits for our non-issue!"

Fuck you, scumbags...not while more and more people bring out their collective knowledge on the issue. I've been extolling the virtues of John P. Costella's excellent analysis of the Climategate situation. I actually read it daily on the subway to and from work.

An announcement from John:

PRESS RELEASE: Australian Senate—The Climate Sceptics Party

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Melbourne, Australia—3 February 2010—Following yesterday’s disappointing announcement by the Australian Opposition of their climate policy, I have today offered to run as a potential candidate of The Climate Sceptics Party for the state of Victoria for the Senate of the Parliament of Australia at the next general election due on or before 16 April 2011.

When boiled down to its overall effects, the Opposition’s climate policy is essentially no different from that currently proposed by the Rudd Government. Australians concerned about the billions of dollars of carbon taxes that both major parties wish to inflict upon them—whether direct or indirect—deserve a genuine choice in the upcoming federal election, not just “more of the same”.

The Climate Sceptics Party is committed to protecting ordinary Australians from rash, alarmist, unwanted policies, relying on scientific objectivity and caution rather than ideological fanaticism, and striving to provide a final “safety switch” on a federal Parliament that is increasingly out of touch with the average Australian.

That is also my goal.

If selected by the Party as a candidate, and if elected by the people of Victoria as a Senator, I will work tirelessly to bring rationality and common sense back to the Australian Senate.

John P. Costella

B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

John - best of luck to you - you are a real hero, in my eyes.

John also has a blog - you can be sure you'll see me there!

Here is another individual's take on the issue, and it only cements my read on the issue. The so-called climatologists willfully attempted to game the system, hiding behind the corrupted process known as "peer-review" to ban articles that countered their ideology, and to produce articles without a shred of science or research that touted their views - the best example of this being the infamous "hockey stick" graph which, at its face, displayed what was referred to as "unprecendented global warmth"; but in truth, was missing pertinent data that, if included, would have shown the cycles of warmth and cold that are normal occurrences in our ecosystem.

Samizdat: Hole in the AGWzone Layer

APOSTASY!

I was going to write an editorial about AGW, but Mr. Hogan's essay (below) stole my thunder, expressing my current views (always amenable to new evidence) perfectly -- an excellent critique that anyone with unfossilized views should take the time to examine.

Yes, I have too become an apostate, rejecting the so-called "consensus" that global disaster lurks due to humans belching CO2 into the atmosphere. It's become a partisan touchstone -- swear allegiance to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), or you're in company with Rush, Sarah Palin and holocaust deniers. Guilt by association. Well, I did learn a lesson from Y2K -- the last time that experts (IT gurus) reached a consensus of imminent catastrophe for the planet, spurring me to stock up on survival goods and prepare for Mad Max scenarios...and not one damn thing happened -- not a single glitch, even in Third World nations where no code remediation took place. The lesson is this: apocalyptic thinking is a perennial habit, always with us, and scientists are not immune to it. Sometime in the future I will submit a list of the overwhelming "consensus" views of the scientific community in the last century that were eventually been proven dead wrong. The second lesson is: scientists, like the rest of us, are political creatures.

Well, AGW is a different issue -- but again I feel that I've been misled by the infamous hockey puck graph -- extend it back several 1000 more years, and you see a completely different story, which has nothing to do with AGW. It's clear from the whole history of climate change on this planet (not the cherry-picked selections for the hockey puck), that humanity has far more to fear from another Ice Age than any marginal increase in warming. Ice Ages are much longer than the interglacial periods, bury enormous tracts of agricultural land, and tie up gigatons of crucial fresh water in ice. But there would more beachfront property.

Eventually, as other advanced civilizations on far older alien planets have probably learned, we will develop means to engineer or at least influence the climate to some degree. And perhaps we will evolve a way to purge politics from science. Our survival may depend on it.

Already I can hear the claims that Mr. Hogan is not a scientist, or is a charlatan, or perhaps has a secret affection for underage girls on internet chat sites -- focusing on his credentials, rather than the hundreds of dissenting or skeptical scientists he cites. Or that the Medieval Warm Period is a "fantasy," or some kind of ambiguous, irrelevant data, rather than the inconvenient truth it poses to the AGW dogma.

(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
by James P. Hogan
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/100114_jph.htm
January 14, 2010


When beliefs that are normally regarded as the province of science become subject to an ideology that decides in advance what answers are required and censors the evidence in ways that steer beliefs toward them, then, regardless of what incidental use might be made of computers, satellites, and other kinds of advanced engineering and technology, what's going on isn't science. But most of the world has never learned to tell the difference – or maybe cared that much.

And that's serious in a society where scientists have come to occupy the position previously enjoyed by the high priesthood, of being revered as the source of true knowledge and providing the justifications for the policies that the governing authority pursues. The danger is that pronouncements made in the name of science will continue to be unquestioned and used as pretexts for controversial or oppressive rulings long after any grounds on a scientific basis have ceased to exist.

I'm writing this at Christmas time, 2009. We've just witnessed a circus of deception and foolishness in Copenhagen that marks a new high in the attempted foisting of a politically motivated ideology upon the world in the guise of bogus science. Fortunately – for the time being at any rate – the canniness of the developing nations in demanding that the supposedly rational West literally put its money where its mouth was by playing out a lemming-like stampede to economic self-destruction brought home the absurdity to a degree that even our scientifically clueless best and brightest couldn't buy, and the whole thing largely came to nothing.

Claims that human activity was – or was even capable of – measurably affecting the Earth's climate made little sense to begin with. For as far back as patterns can be reconstructed, the climate has always cycled between being warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, stormy or settled, and the changes observed during the industrial era have been well inside the swings that have taken place in the past. So there's no reason to suppose that anything, human-induced or otherwise, is affecting the climate abnormally. Compared to water vapor and the activity of the Sun, carbon dioxide plays a minor role in determining temperature, and the amount generated by Nature dwarfs anything that humans add. In any case, the times of rising temperature recorded over the ages have all happened first, not the other way around, so increases in CO2 levels are a consequence not a cause. And even if humans were having the influence that has been claimed, the results would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Living things thrive in warmer environments, not frigid ones. Far more people die in winter from the effects of cold than from heat waves. Carbon dioxide is plant food, the basis of all life. Crops and flora of every kind grow more luxuriantly with a richer supply of it. The big advances in human civilization, reflected in the rise of cultures and times of elevated expansion and exploration, inventiveness, agriculture, artistry, and science, all occurred in warmer climatic periods. Anyone who is sincere about praising the virtues of a "green" planet should love it.

Shortly before Copenhagen, the suspicions that even superficial consideration of such points should have raised were confirmed beyond doubt with the revelations of collusion, going back years, among a cadre of climate researchers to manufacture a scientific case supporting a quasi-religious world view and presumption of the relationship between man and nature that is being given as the justification for measures that would impose drastic energy cutbacks and costly changes in living standards worldwide. The practices employed include massaging and falsification of data; suppression and destruction of conflicting evidence; rigging of computer models to deliver predetermined results; withholding of information from independent examination; the exclusion of dissenters from the official peer review process; and the intimidation of journals from publishing their objections. For those who may have missed the controversy going on behind the scenes while the mainstream media are apparently doing their best to play it down, or have just returned from a vacation on Mars, a good overview by Paul Driessen is posted here. But a couple of examples will give the idea:



The figure above was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 1990 maiden assessment and shows the pattern of variation in the Earth's temperature over the previous thousand years that had been generally accepted up until then, based on data from such sources as tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores, and historic documents. It clearly depicts the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) of 900–1300 AD, when the Vikings maintained settlements and farms on the green coasts of Greenland and wine grapes grew in Scotland, and the "Little Ice Age" (LIA) that followed, centered on 1600 AD, in which winter fairs were held on London's frozen River Thames, and R. D. Blackmore's novel Lorna Doone had trees on Dartmoor bursting with sounds like cannon shots under the pressure of internal ice. These periods are part of a series of natural cycles that go to greater extremes, such as one around six thousand years ago, when the Sahara was grassland watered by rivers, and southern England basked in subtropical luxuriance. (Humans and polar bears survived just fine.)

Ever since humans began turning applied intelligence in the form of technology to making life more secure, comfortable, and generally less burdensome, there has been a pervasive element among them who took it upon themselves to oppose and condemn what most were inclined to view as a bettering of their condition. There seems to be something akin to a religious guilt complex at work, in which the seeking of creature comforts and a reprieve from toil and drudgery is seen as sinful, and atonement calls for renouncing the benefits and returning to the rigors of a simpler but more virtuous, soul-cleansing life. (It's interesting to note that the guilt tends to be expressed primarily by the more affluent, articulate, and influential, whose own standards will be little affected by the sacrifices demanded of those who are supposed to do the atoning.)

Things reached a crescendo in the later decades of the twentieth century, when soaring productivity and such revolutionary innovations as affordable air travel and communications for the masses, and the prospect of unlimited energy threatened wanton iniquity exploding on a worldwide scale. Reactions from the righteous came swiftly with the campaigns to demonize DDT, pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals, and nuclear energy, and apocalyptic auguries of planetary destruction from exhaustion of the food supply (late 1960s); a carbon-burning-induced ice age (mid 1970s); jetliner exhausts, particularly the SST (late 1970s); depletion of the ozone layer (1980s). But of all the environmental alarms that were sounded and had their day, the banner issue to emerge, behind which all the disparate cohorts of doom and ruin rallied, was global warming.

For anyone with stakes in the manmade disaster business, it had everything going for it: lurid images of polar meltdown, drowning cities, and dried-up farmland; a threat of global dimensions that demanded coordinated global action, and hence the institution of a global policing authority that had long been the dream of those who would abolish sovereign nation states; limitless opportunities for tax-funded "further research" and worthy political causes; and all the usual suspects to blame for opponents of industrial civilization and the Western way of life in general. Frustrated academics and intellectuals with cravings for recognition but nothing to offer that anyone would vote for at the ballot box or freely spend their money on in the market place could become voices behind the throne and make the world notice them. Even the villains of the piece had something to gain with the promise of enormous subsidies and tax incentives in return for diverting their efforts into environmentally friendly projects and "alternative" energy sources that had the one common attribute of being utterly incapable of supplying the needs of an advanced, technology-driven society, and likely to price energy – and hence just about everything else – beyond the means of most people in all but approved and rationed amounts.

Moreover, a believable mechanism by which man's nefarious actions, if left uncurbed, might heat the planet to the verge of spontaneous combustion was right there. All major industries and large-scale transportation systems depend ultimately on fuel burning, with the consequent release of carbon dioxide (apart from nuclear, but that had effectively been put on hold for the time being). Carbon dioxide contributes to the "greenhouse effect," the natural process by which the atmosphere keeps the Earth around 33°C warmer – and therefore inhabitable – than it would otherwise be at this distance from the Sun. Provided one didn't look too closely at the numbers, which showed things like CO2 being a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, and the bulk of it coming from natural sources such as oceanic outgassing, volcanic activity, and the byproducts of life and decomposition, CO2 could be presented as the principal mover, and human activity as the agency primarily responsible for generating it. In an age conditioned to accepting anything that comes out of a computer with uncritical awe and bedazzlement – Garbage In, Gospel Out – the next best thing to a infallible papal pronouncement on the veracity of the theory as an article of faith could be produced in the form of complex computer models with the appropriate assumptions and outcome built-in.

It was the perfect formula. A universal gravy train. The Great Social Equalizer – although some would remain more equal than others. The road to power of truly totalitarian dimensions. . . . There was only one small thing wrong. The record of temperatures past said that the Earth had already been through variations greater than anything that could be coaxed out of CO2-driven computer models while humans were still depending on sailing ships and water wheels, and nothing remarkable had come of it.

In an article that appeared recently in American Thinker, Marc Sheppard describes the astonishment, in 1995, of a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma on receiving an e-mail from a leading figure in climate change research that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” And they did.



This is the version of the temperature record that appears in the IPCC's 2001 Assessment, and is particularly stressed in the Summary for Policymakers, the highly-politicized synopsis that is all that most of the people making decisions that affect the lives of millions read, and which commands the bulk of media attention. It's the curve that has come to be known as the "Hockey Stick," from its shape of temperatures fluctuating about a fairly level mean implicitly for millennia, and turning upward sharply around the beginning of the twentieth century to mark the commencement of an unprecedented increase coincident with the growth of human population and industrialization. The construction merges data from a number of sources, applying certain statistical procedures – which in itself is not unusual when normalizing large data sets – and subjecting the result to various "corrections," said to compensate for biases and drifts.

Challenges from skeptics followed immediately on grounds of both the validity of the data used and the methodology employed. Since reliable and systematic temperature measurements are not available from before about 1850, "proxy" figures were used instead for the earlier portion, calculated from such sources as analysis of tree rings and lake-bottom sediments, while actual thermometer figures were used for the more recent period. But tree rings are affected by rainfall, humidity, diseases, and other factors, and teasing out the effect attributable to temperature is controversial. Critics contended that the results as presented made the earlier period appear cooler than it was, while the later part did the opposite – all of which, of course, would suit a predetermined agenda for demonstrating recent warming quite well.

The objection to the later thermometer measurements was that they turned out to be based essentially on figures from ground stations, which independent surveys have revealed as being poorly sited to an astonishing degree in locations guaranteed to read high, with nearby air-conditioner outlets, large expanses of concrete and asphalt, parked vehicles, and the like. In many cases the surroundings have changed with time, so that what the temperature increases recorded over the years and duly fed into the statistical surveys were in fact measuring was local urban development and the expansion of airports, not changes in the climate. The more rural the ground stations, the less the effect. Measurements from satellites and balloons, by contrast, showed no consistent warming trend.

A basic principle of science is openness, which requires data and methods to be made available to others so that results can be verified by duplicating them – or else falsified. The authors of the Hockey Stick refused to disclose their raw data or details of the processing methods and computer codes that they had applied. One priceless reason, given in response to a request from an Australian scientist, was, “Why should we . . . when your whole aim is to find something wrong with it?” (!) Nevertheless, a couple of Canadian researchers managed to put the story together through some intricate detective work and demonstrated that the model was rigged to produce a hockey-stick shape – even if fed random data or telephone numbers.

Things didn't end there, unsurprisingly. Defenders closed ranks to uphold the warming thesis and contest the refutation, and the controversy continues heatedly at present, but you'd never know it from following the mainstream media or listening to inane assertions that "the science is settled." Many in the alarmist camp are reported to be having second thoughts, but the diehards argue that, while the original hockey stick derivation may have had its flaws, other bodies of evidence show that the trend is real nevertheless. An example that continues to be cited in papers published by major science journals is a collection of tree ring measurements from Siberia that in fact formed one of the data sets incorporated into the initial study. However, when skeptics finally obtained the original data after encountering strenuous efforts to withhold them, they found that the sample used consisted of just 12 trees selected from a set of 252 – which included 34 from the same geographical vicinity as the selected 12. The illustration below shows how much difference the selecting – known as "cherry picking" – made.



The red line is the result obtained with data from just the 12 selected trees – the picture the world is given as proof that we're melting the Antarctic ice cap. (Even if it were true, how a rise of 2.5°C is supposed to melt billions of tons of ice covering an area one and a half times the size of the United States, in places extending as deep as 16,000 feet, at an average temperature of -60°C, is never explained.) The black line shows what happens when the same procedure is applied to the full data set of all 252 trees. No comment necessary.



Here's another example, this time from a station at Darwin in Northern Australia. The red line shows the huge warming reported after "adjustments" to the original data that as far as I can ascertain have never been clearly accounted for. The unadjusted data, shown in blue, once again actually exhibits cooling. Taken from Anthony Watts's site, which also provides a detailed discussion. James Delingpole of the UK Telegraph gives further examples of similar cases around the world and shows how data from areas that show no warming, or even actual cooling, have been dropped and replaced by extrapolations from surrounding regions, sometimes at considerable distances away, to produce an impression of net overall warming. In summary, there appears to be substantial evidence, from a number of independent sources, that the data used for the IPCC's conclusions have been adjusted in undocumented ways, and those adjustments account for practically all the warming we are told has been caused by humans.

So what effect, if any, have humans really had? The doctrine reflected in the IPCC's position is that temperatures have risen through the twentieth century, the prime cause is carbon dioxide produced by humans, and if left to continue, the result will be planetary disaster. There is little dispute that carbon dioxide levels have increased. Whether this can unequivocally be attributed to humans in the way that is usually assumed, however, is another question. Studies of ice cores show that in the natural cycle of things, temperature rises come first by anything from decades to centuries, so much of the increase in CO2 could well be an effect of recovery from the Little Ice Age. This is supported by the fact that most of the warming that did take place in the 20th century – around 0.6°C – took place before 1940, whereas CO2 didn't really take off until the postwar growth of industrialization, so it's difficult to see how the latter could have caused the former. Reports are available from the times before the issue became a political matter subject to Orwellian rewrite, and independent studies have been conducted based on all the data available today without the unexplained adjustments. What they show is:

* Warming from around 1920 to the early 1940s. (NASA has admitted that 1934 was the US's warmest year, not 1998 as recently hyped, and that three of the warmest years were before 1940. Said to be due to a "mathematical error.")

* Cooling from after 1940 to the late 1970s. (Most people today will have forgotten, or maybe never knew, that this was when the same science journals and news sources were warning of an end to life as we know it with the imminent onset of a new ice age. The culprit was fossil-fuel burning, the means this time being particulates in the atmosphere cutting down incoming sunlight. The solution was the ending of life as we know it by the same kind of taxes, cutbacks, and global policing as are being called for today.)

* Warming from the late 1970s to about 1998

* No change from 1998 to 2001, and net cooling since then which pretty much negates the warming experienced in the first part of the century.

Hence, the only period for which both CO2 and temperature happened to be rising together is the twenty-odd years from the late seventies to the late nineties. As far as any evidence goes, this is the entire case for manmade global warming and all the panic that has ensued because of it.

We are told that consensus among the world's scientists has put the subject beyond further debate. But something that the mainstream media have been largely silent about is that more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, have signed an appeal addressed to the world's leaders expressing grave reservations and calling for policymaking to be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions. “The greatest evils which stalk our Earth,” they state, “are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself.” If consensus is to be the measure, then that's three times the number of experts cited by the UN IPCC; and even these turn out to be mostly political representatives or graduates in the humanities, with no training in the philosophy or methods of science.

Over 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing evidence that gases released through human activity pose any threat to the future.

Nevertheless, with eyes and minds fixated on political and ideological goals, and all faculties that might connect with reality apparently on hold, the coterie who would dictate the world's future met with the intent of agreeing an agenda that would send energy usage and living standards back to levels appropriate to the nineteenth century, while four inches of snow fell outside, and unprecedented early blizzards were blanketing Europe and setting records in the American Midwest. This at the end of a year that has seen China's coldest winter in 100 years, Baghdad having its first snow in recorded history, record levels of Antarctic sea ice, and record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile.

But such inconvenient truths as facts don't matter when you're pushing an ideology, either because it's what will bring big breaks your way or because you genuinely believe you're saving the planet. The great fear underlying it all is the neo-Malthusian specter of overpopulating a world with limited resources and going downhill in an orgy of Mad Max degeneracy and desperation when everything finally runs out. That's a legitimate view to hold. And it might even be correct. But it's a social and political issue that should be honestly addressed and argued as such. Trying to justify a preconceived dogma through phony, trumped-up science isn't the way to go. The fraud will eventually be exposed, and the main victim will be trust in real science of every kind – both of which are already happening.

I've written previously on why I believe the fears to be misplaced. Applying observations drawn from the population dynamics of animals to human societies is to deny the qualities which set humans apart. Unlike animals, who simply consume resources and react with fixed behaviors to their environment, humans create resources and change their behavior according to the new conditions that they bring about. A resource isn't a resource until the knowledge and the means exist to make use of it. New technologies create new resources, and as the record of history shows, always on a scale that dwarfs what went before. Furthermore, ample evidence exists to show that when human societies reach sufficiently high levels of affluence and well-being, birth rates decline and populations eventually stabilize in ways that Thomas Malthus and his intellectual descendants of present times fail, or refuse, to consider.

Humans do seem to have amazing reserves of tenacity and the ability to muddle through in spite of the odds, however, and a better world will very likely come out of it all one day. A world with the wisdom to realize that being able to enjoy the natural wonders of our planet and the universe, and at the same time take advantage of the benefits that human ingenuity and creativity make possible are not mutually exclusive. The inhabitants of that age will maybe look back on the present as a kind of Dark Age – a time when people finally figured out, in the form of science, a dependable way of distinguishing what's probably true from what probably isn't, and discovered the astounding things that technology is capable of – but then lacked the wit to apply either body of knowledge effectively to the betterment and benefit of all.

I sometimes wonder if a race of super-intelligences exists in some transcendental reality, who in spite of their godlike qualities found themselves bedeviled by the same social and political problems as ourselves, and created the cosmos as a gazillion Petri dishes in a gigantic genetic programming experiment to see if any of the life forms that emerged in it might come up with an answer that worked. I know it won't come as much comfort to those who want to believe that there's something out there that watches over us and cares, but it seems to me that such an intelligence would do things for its reasons, not what we think ought to be its reasons, and the fate of any particular species in the collection – let alone an individual lost in among it – would not be a matter of any great concern. Which means it's pretty much up to us, doesn't it?

James P. Hogan, a former digital systems engineer and computer sales executive, has been a full-time writer since 1980. He was born in London, moved to the USA for many years, and now lives in the Republic of Ireland. His web site is at www.jamesphogan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Travis Kelly Graphics
http://www.tkellygraphics.com
435-259-1198

Editorial & History Cartoons
http://www.traviskelly.com

CafePress:
Cartoons on T-Shirts, Posters, Calendars, Mugs and more
http://www.cafepress.com/traviskelly

Once again, dear readers - I implore you to read John P. Costella's excellent dissection of the leaked ClimateGate emails...I cannot stress how essential his research into the issue has been for explaining in plain language what a clusterfuck the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming has become.

ClimateGate Analysis By John P. Costella, B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

Absolutely AWESOME.

I cannot contain my excitement upon reading this document.

The problem with the LEAKED emails (I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH...the emails were NOT "HACKED"; they were LEAKED) is that in their original form, it tends to overwhelm the lay person as "too much data"; all at once.

Costella took the time to go through the emails, examine the data therein, and made it immediately accessible to anyone who comes in contact with said document.

With that being said...I have added the document to my blogroll, but I did not make a posting of this until I had a chance to peruse the 142 page examination of just what occurred behind the scenes.

I woke up with the runs this morning...and I don't believe it had anything to do with my spinach, feta cheese and raspberry viniagrette salad last night; it was more to do with reading about the hugest batch of scumbaggery I have ever seen.

So, without further ado, I present to you, dear readers, ClimateGate Analysis By John P. Costella, B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. - I want to keep this on the top of the page until further notice, and I don't plan to post anything else for the entire weekend...unless we have another "Weiner Bomber" or some such idiocy in the headlines.

I await your comments upon reading this expose. Also, I wish to weigh upon the the concept of "peer-review".

Let's start with a simple equation: "Peer-review" + ideology = SCUMBAGGERY.

"Peer-review" is the process by which scientific discoveries are vetted; one of the points stressed by Costella is that any scientist, given the data and the means for measuring said data, should be able to replicate said results. In this case, you will note numerous examples of obfuscating information where the actual facts are being willfully hidden from those attempting to verify the "facts" bandied about by Jones, Mann, et. al.

In this case, "peer-review" is simply "gaming the system" - all attempts were made to control the data, or, as one of the scumbags himself put it, to "hide the decline".

I hope that this ends any further discussion about ClimateGate not being a real concern for you and I.

A Quick Start In 2010

Happy New Year, dear readers!

WattsUpWithThat has posted a letter from Lord Monckton - enjoy.

This from Freedom Is Truth In Action:

Some douche bag was making fun of Jesse Ventura mainly the global warming episode. After i schooled him on here the whole bulletin disappeared so i guess ill explain it again. #1 The earths overall temp. is dependent on solar winds and solar flares.#2 CO2 is not a major green house gas 90%of the all green house gases is water vapor. #3 the largest contributor of CO2 is not humans its the ocean all animals breath out CO2 the ocean is most of the Earth and animals inhabit it 3 dimensionally. #4 taxes {the reason they perpetrate the lie} don't solve problems they collect money. The Republicans and Democrats are 2 wings of the same bird and they are not on the peoples side. Do your research.

Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking In St. Paul Regarding "Climate Change"

Climate Change = Global Warming = Scumbaggery

Speaking of scumbaggery...I know that my blog does not allow for anonymous comments, that the comments left would be few and far between; but I have noticed a trend here, and at Greg Bacon's blog - a fantastic posting regarding Venezuela. I still fondly remember the 36 hours in April 2002, where the scumbags fell to the will of the people, and barely escaped with their lives...but I digress. What I noticed is that a number of cheesy porn links are embedded behind foreign characters.

Well...I don't know why you idiots are wasting your time. I have a real relationship, and I couldn't give a bloody damn about any stupid links you wish to proffer to my fellow bloggers or to myself. As I said before, I've DVDs still in their shrinkwrap, and maybe before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I'll take 'em for a spin; but let me make it bloody clear: I don't need your help in finding boobies on the internet; and I especially don't need nitwits trying to poison my cache with their sweatshop smut.

Then again...this could be one of the ball-less wonders from CounterKnowledge. Keep screwing around, taint-licker...you'll find yourself back on AOL chats before I'm done with you.

Oh, my stars and garters...look who's back in town - Dominik O. Suter.

Beating A Rotting Nag

Just a quick one tonight, dear readers. Hope the holiday season is greeting you with some modicum of joy.

I've a great couple of weeks ahead. I will pay it forward with my best wishes to you all.

So...look outside of your window. See that undeniable evidence of anthropogenic global warming?

I thought so.

Albert Gore is a lickspittle henchman of the scumbags already reaping rewards from their new derivative - Climate Change Credits.

Let's just be clear here - the Copenhagen conference was NEVER about actually doing anything about` the environment...because there's no bloody way to do it. Of course, we can all make an effort not to consciously and lazily add to atmospheric pollution, but not a sentence with this mindset was ever uttered even once during this conference.

This is all about gaming the system. This is nothing but a scheme to defraud nations and the people living within. The ClimateGate emails and texts should have put the lie to all of the grandiose glad-handing...despite their insistence that "hide the decline" actually didn't mean that the decline was being hidden. All of the nonsense about people opposed to "AGW" being the tools of Big Oil...do I seem like I'm a paid whore from Exxon/Mobil? Do I wear BP underwear? Fuck 'em - they're just another bunch of scumbags, raping us all for a renewable resource that they called "fossil fuel" until the work of Russian scientists was brought to the fore by the plagiarism of Thomas Gold. Read this in case David McGowan's pages aren't readily accessible.

Dear readers, here's the news: we're not going to run out of oil, unless we keep wasting it on bullshite wars like what's currently occurring.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Go no further than Mike Rivero's cogent analysis, replete with images of our soldiers standing uniform-deep in poppy fields.

Or is it that you couldn't give a fuck? Just shut up, pal; grab a beer, check out that fumble; why do ah need ta pay attenshun ta that crap? ah got mah teevee; ah got mah beer; ah got mah job...hey - pass me that phone...hello...whut? Whut do yah mean, the plant's shut down? It was releasing TOO MUCH CO2? Ah thut thet dang conference took care of all thet! Dang...ah knew thet glo-BULL wormin' was a bunch of horseapples...there's three feet of snow outside.

That's right...look outside, dear readers. You see an Earth warming out of control?

The only thing "out of control" are the avaricious appetites of the scumbags attempting to scam their way into your wallets by charging you for exhaling carbon dioxide...something that is part of our ecosystem. Plants require CO2 to LIVE. CO2 is part of the food chain, and is an integral part of the circle of life.

Haven't you heard scientists refer to humans as a "carbon-based life form"?

One last note - our drone camera feeds were hacked into by off-the-shelf software? Someone's head should fucking roll...of course, this idea is total bullshite. You guys better come up with a better tale than that.

The Real Truth Behind Copenhagen

This info was provided by my pal, Juan (FU¢K "CHANGE")

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak - This is the real truth behind Copenhagen

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per ca More..pita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2 degree Centigrade and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

This is great! Finally, there are those out there who are tossing more spanners in the works of the scumbags. Keep it up, people.

The Copenhagen Crime Fable Begins!

Yes! Today is the day that representatives from nearly 200 nations try to jam a lie down the world's collective throats; namely, the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Of course, we in the know are aware of something we like to call the ClimateGate Iceberg, or simply, the intercepted/planted email from the climate scientists from East Anglia.

Global Warming is a goddamned LIE, just in case you didn't get the memo.

TAKE OUR SURVEY: Should Gore's Oscar and Nobel prize be taken back?
http://www.PJTV.com/climategate

Guess what? It's also Pearl Harbor Day! I asked someone to tell me what they thought about it...I didn't get an answer. I was hoping to get into a big brouhaha about how they were lied to decades ago about the so-called "surprise attack". Ah, well.

I still can't believe that fucking scumbag Monserrate got PROBATION. Let's go through the scenario again: Hiram heard about the card in her bag; after some heated words, he decides to go get her a glass of water; upon approaching her, he TRIPS and the WHOLE GLASS in his hand CUTS HER FACE.

And the check's in the mail, and that other story...oops!

Weekend Update

Weekend Update for December 4-8, 2009

A couple of things to keep an eye on...first order of business is

Monserrate sentencing could bring jail time
By Jeremy Walsh

Last Updated: 11:25 AM, December 3, 2009

Posted: 11:25 AM, December 3, 2009

Friday is a day of reckoning for state Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-East Elmhurst), who faces up to a year in jail when he is sentenced for misdemeanor assault. But jail time is just one possibility for Monserrate, a first-time offender, former Marine and ex-NYPD officer.

Monserrate was convicted in October of recklessly injuring his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, after a December 2008 fight in his Jackson Heights apartment. Monserrate is depicted on security camera footage dragging Giraldo away from a neighbor’s door as she holds on to the staircase and then the doorway of the apartment building in an apparent attempt to resist him.

The misdemeanor conviction could carry a sentence of jail time, probation, a fine or anger management classes, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

Monserrate was acquitted of felony assault charges for allegedly slashing Giraldo’s face with a broken glass after discovering another man’s police union card in her purse. Monserrate and Giraldo have both claimed her injuries were accidental, incurred when he stumbled in the dark and spilled water on her, causing her to shoot upright in bed and collide with the glass in his hand.

His attorney, Joseph Tacopina, has said he will appeal the misdemeanor conviction.

In the meantime, Monserrate faces an uphill battle to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses and to build a war chest for his 2010 re-election bid.

The Albany Times Union reported Monserrate has established a legal defense fund based on a legal opinion issued for former state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez that differentiated between what was an improper gift and what would be considered a legitimate contribution to the fund.

The Queens Democratic Party has already endorsed state Assemblyman Jose Peralta (D-Jackson Heights) in the 2010 Democratic primary for Monserrate’s seat.

But the senator may not be in office that long. The state Senate is in the process of deciding whether it has the authority to expel Monserrate based on the conviction. Had he been found guilty of a felony, the senator would have been forced to resign. With the lesser charge in place, the Senate’s recourse is unclear. Public hearings are expected soon.

Monserrate’s participation in a June coup in the Senate also jeopardizes his viability in the state Legislature. He followed state Sen. Pedro Espada (D-Bronx) over to the Republican fold briefly, overturning the two-vote Democratic majority and sparking a month-long stalemate that alienated many of his colleagues.


Reach reporter Jeremy Walsh by e-mail at jewalsh@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 154.

Oh, look - three years probation...no jail time.

In other news...looks like ClimateGate is out of the bag. Oh, Al...I hear that they're calling for your Academy Award and your Nobel Peace Prize to be rescinded.

Oops.

Tiger...should have given up the goods in the beginning.

Did anyone read Buddy Boys by Mike McAlary? Apparently, this tool LEO didn't.

Fat Al & ClimateGate

Mike Rivero and Alex Jones have kept ClimateGate in the top of their news rosters. Good work, boys. I think the naming convention of adding "Gate" to every political scandal is retarded and mendacious, not to mention lazy, since We The People still haven't gotten to the bottom of Watergate, but I digress.

Dutch Environmental Minister Jacqueline Cramer goes one octave higher than the rest of her intentionally-deluded colleagues and states that the "hacked emails" were also "manipulated" - and that's where I jump the line to pants this idiot. My comments to this article are to clear up two things: one, that the emails were not HACKED, they were INTERCEPTED; two, since the CRU deleted their bullshit data, and none of the scientists dispute the authenticity of the emails in question, what the hell kinda OxyContin is she on?

Albert Gore...do you now see what a fat piece of shite you are?

You dove like a fat fuck into a pool of fudge...and you haven't yet come up for air. You threw the 2000 election; yes, you did, you stupid bastard! Fuck you and your goddamned attempt to cash in on our dime. Global Warming, or more appropriately, "human-caused" climate change is a GODDAMNED LIE.

Here's a snippet from the article linked above:

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

Go fuck yourself, you bloody idiot. I mean, why listen to what you have to say, anyway?

YOU LOST TO GEORGE WALKER BUSH.

You lost the most important race in America to a complete fucktard, and We The People suffered as a result of your lackluster effort.

You lost to a fucking cokehead fratboy who put firecrackers in frog's assholes to watch 'em blow up...who gives a rancid rat's ass what you have to say about anything?

Albert Gore...you should use that Nobel Peace Prize that you were given as a suppository; your film An Inconvenient Truth should be shown only to mental patients at asylums; and as for you? You should be across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue sucking syphilitic cock for hits of bad crack.

Thanks for nothing, scumbag.

Here's a link to a blog where you can download the emails and decide for yourself.

A bud sent me Fall Of The Republic - check it out. Also, Travis Kelly has an article on CounterPunch - The U2 Files - Mayday, 1960.